The economical buildup of Germany in the 30s

[ray245]

Many people I know hold the belief that if they are to name any "good" actions that was done by Hitler, they tend to say it is due to his actions that resulted in Germany being able to rebuild its economy after the great depression, and became a strong military power by the late 30s. It is percuilar to view that only the Nazi party is able to rejuvinate Germany's economy, but I am unable to offer any concrete alternative to what they are saying.

So, to what extend is such a view true or false?


~Fixed. Thanas

[ray245]

Can a mod fix the spelling error I've made? Thanks.

[Samuel]

Many people I know hold the belief that if they are to name any "good" actions that was done by Hitler, they tend to say it is due to his actions that resulted in Germany being able to rebuild its economy after the great depression, and became a strong military power by the late 30s.

Do they offer any basis for this? Germany was a major economic and military power on the continent before world war 1- is there any reason to believe it wouldn't be able to become that powerful under any government?

It is percuilar to view that only the Nazi party is able to rejuvinate Germany's economy, but I am unable to offer any concrete alternative to what they are saying.

What about the communists? If you believe wholescale restructuring of society is necesary for the future, they are the people who fit the bill the best.

[lukexcom]

The Economics of World War II, Six Great Powers in International Comparison (edited by Mark Harrison) has a good, in-depth look at Germany's economy from about 1933 to 1945. The section that deals with Germany is "Germany: Guns, Butter, and Economic Miracles", written by Werner Abelshauser. Google books has a good preview of it here.

Essentially that section of the book says that there was a significant increase in GDP and GDP per capita between 1933 ($149 billion US dollars and $3,591 per capita at 1990 prices) and its peak in 1944 ($274 billion and $6,249 per capita at 1990 prices). However, those numbers after 1936 become more and more deceptive, because between 1936 and 1939 military expenditures were almost doubling every fiscal year, and from 1939 military outlays as a percentage of national income went from 23% to a peak of 70% in 1943.

The book goes into significantly more detail, including calorific values of food rations, cost of living changes, worker productivity, munitions production, etc. so I would recommend obtaining the book if you can.

So yes, Germany's economy definitely grew quite well. But after the mid-1930s, more and more of that growth was armament-related. After 1939 it slowly became nearly the sole focus of the German economy. But the claim that the Nazis were the only party that was capable of such strong economic growth is pure BS. The book shows that nearly all of the major economies grew in significantly in the 1930s and some still grew in the 1940s.

[K. A. Pital]

To add to lukexcom's excellent post (I'd recommend reading Mark Harrison's tomes "Economics of World War I" and "Economics of World War II" as well), there's also a very peculiar path the Nazis set their economy on. It was a path of gathering foreign resources for war, essentially plundering without mobilizing much. Without plundering, the Nazi economy would've faced a very serious wage and substience crisis in several years into the war.

Reading "Wages of Destruction" by A. Tooze is also quite recommended to gain an understanding of how the Nazi economy worked and what it was aimed at in terms of long-term development.

Quite certainly, even the post-Versallies Germany was an industrial powerhouse at the core of it; an industrialized nation that only had to bring forth it's reserves to full power. I'm quite sure that when dealing with such an industrialized nation as Germany, a non-Nazi government would be able to cope quite the same as the Nazis, minus constructing a rather horrific plunder-oriented war machine.

[LaCroix]

One of the reasons many people think the Nazis did something "good" was that there were a huge number of projects which were as much prestige as preparation for war. Also, because of those huge projects, there was no unemployment.

The highway net, for example, was good for trade, but in fact it was to ensure fast travel of troops.

[Sea Skimmer]

Big load of bullshit. Hitler didn’t rebuild the German economy in the fucking first place, he mobilized it for war and halted all investments other then those for warfare. Even stuff about him making jobs is largely false, as the only money the Nazis ever spent specifically for job creation had already been budgeted by the previous government! The result of Nazi economic policies was to completely drain Germany of foreign exchange (they operated on around a 1-2 week supply of currency) and force a complex and ill planned system of price, wage and materials controls which just barely balanced. Nazi attempts to build up the economy (which were absurdly unrealistic) completely failed and were a major driving factor in the decision to invade Poland rather to waiting to complete the arms buildup.

The Wages of Destruction is a must read on the subject as Stas pointed out already. Amazon is selling it absurdly cheap for being an 850 page book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014311 ... 7YW8GWK8DN

Absolutely any other government that came into power at the same time would have been able to blunt the effects of the depression just as well as Hitler did, and within a few years any reasonable government would be doing better because it would be making long term economic improvements and not spending into armed oblivion.

[Spoonist]

I still think the nazi propaganda machine was amazing.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/erreicht.htm
Things like this is still making the rounds. Just like the polish cavalry. Just like jewish banking. Just like unless the bolsjeviks are stopped in country X, then country Y is bound to follow. Just like the politicians lost WWI. Just like the germans having the greatest tanks of WWII. etc.

[Bilbo]

It is an old problem created by most people's ignorance of economics. Economic policy changes take time to take effect. This can be measured for small changes in months and large changes in years. Politicians will make changes that do not have a real effect for years after they are out of office. Of course the Politician sitting in office will accept credit for the actions of the predecessor.

The opposite happens as well though. One leader makes mistakes that take time to take effect and the negative economy is held against the guy in office. Basically the guy in the hotseat is held accountable for what happens when he is in office good or bad, whether or not he has been around long enough to make the changes that caused the condition.

For Hitler it was a benefit. He rode the good fortune of his predecessors economic plans.

[spaceviking]

One of the reasons many people think the Nazis did something "good" was that there were a huge number of projects which were as much prestige as preparation for war. Also, because of those huge projects, there was no unemployment.

The highway net, for example, was good for trade, but in fact it was to ensure fast travel of troops.

I can't comment on if these particular projects were in preparation for war, however many of the large public works projects were planned prior to the Nazi takeover.

[Glocksman]

To add to lukexcom's excellent post (I'd recommend reading Mark Harrison's tomes "Economics of World War I" and "Economics of World War II" as well), there's also a very peculiar path the Nazis set their economy on. It was a path of gathering foreign resources for war, essentially plundering without mobilizing much. Without plundering, the Nazi economy would've faced a very serious wage and substience crisis in several years into the war.

Reading "Wages of Destruction" by A. Tooze is also quite recommended to gain an understanding of how the Nazi economy worked and what it was aimed at in terms of long-term development.

Quite certainly, even the post-Versallies Germany was an industrial powerhouse at the core of it; an industrialized nation that only had to bring forth it's reserves to full power. I'm quite sure that when dealing with such an industrialized nation as Germany, a non-Nazi government would be able to cope quite the same as the Nazis, minus constructing a rather horrific plunder-oriented war machine.

I read Wages of Destruction when my local library acquired a copy.
While I consider myself more informed than the average Hoosier WRT world war 2 and the circumstances surrounding Nazi Germany's history, I confess that I learned a lot that I didn't even consider from reading that book.


In a similar vein, Richard Evans's series on the Third Reich is highly recommended.
For those interested in the immediate postwar history of western Europe, Tony Judt's Postwar had a profound effect on my outlook WRT the rest of the world and broadened my viewpoint beyond a US centric one.

[Simon_Jester]

I still think the nazi propaganda machine was amazing.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/erreicht.htm
Things like this is still making the rounds. Just like the polish cavalry. Just like jewish banking. Just like unless the bolsjeviks are stopped in country X, then country Y is bound to follow. Just like the politicians lost WWI. Just like the germans having the greatest tanks of WWII. etc.

Well, their tanks were pretty damn impressive, especially from the point of view of the English-speaking world (whose tanks sucked in comparison, by and large). The rest of it is, yes, sheer gibberish.

I think part of the problem is that everyone gets a rush when they think they have discovered a secret. And to a certain caliber of mind, a self-consistent lie* is indistinguishable from a secret.

*Consistent with itself, not necessarily consistent with the facts.

[Spoonist]

I still think the nazi propaganda machine was amazing.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/erreicht.htm
Things like this is still making the rounds. Just like the polish cavalry. Just like jewish banking. Just like unless the bolsjeviks are stopped in country X, then country Y is bound to follow. Just like the politicians lost WWI. Just like the germans having the greatest tanks of WWII. etc.

Well, their tanks were pretty damn impressive, especially from the point of view of the English-speaking world (whose tanks sucked in comparison, by and large).

(Sorry about the tangent)
Well others on this board can do this much better but here goes a short one:
-Not when compared to soviet tanks.
It is quite telling how little soviet tank design was influenced by captured german tanks when you look on how much the germans tried to copy from captured soviet tanks.
-Not if you took the production cost into account.
If you do not have air supperiority and are being bombarded on a regular basis, then its poor design to have something so inherently complex that you need a coordinated effort of several factories for production to work.
-Not if you took the intended role and theatre into consideration.
Building a tank specifically to invade the soviet union that could not operate in mud or in freezing winter, then you simply have done something wrong.

Take the sherman for instance, quite a shitty tank if you only compare it 1-1, however they built some 50'000 of them. The US got it right, even if its shit - if you just get enough of it then the enemy will drown in it.

[CaptHawkeye]

Say what? The Sherman is a shitty tank if you compare it 1-1 against, what, a Tiger? Yeah, that's a totally fair match up. The Tiger is a heavy tank, vs. a medium, the Sherman.

Even if you're comparing the Sherman to other mediums like the Panzer IV, it's still a better tank on the whole than most of its opponents. The Sherman's poor reputation came from a number of factors, mostly revisionist bullshit and exaggerations.

[NettiWelho]

The Nazis did get something right

[Simon_Jester]

(Sorry about the tangent)
Well others on this board can do this much better but here goes a short one:
-Not when compared to soviet tanks.
It is quite telling how little soviet tank design was influenced by captured german tanks when you look on how much the germans tried to copy from captured soviet tanks.
-Not if you took the production cost into account.
If you do not have air supperiority and are being bombarded on a regular basis, then its poor design to have something so inherently complex that you need a coordinated effort of several factories for production to work.
-Not if you took the intended role and theatre into consideration.
Building a tank specifically to invade the soviet union that could not operate in mud or in freezing winter, then you simply have done something wrong.

Take the sherman for instance, quite a shitty tank if you only compare it 1-1, however they built some 50'000 of them. The US got it right, even if its shit - if you just get enough of it then the enemy will drown in it.

Let me try to explain my point. I am not saying the German tanks were technically flawless, or that they were the best in the world, or that they represented supremely efficient engineering. I am saying they were impressive, in the sense that they did in fact make an impression. German tanks were good enough to be quite alarming to the English-speaking Allies, especially the heavier models. The Western Allies had a number of very painful experiences where they ran up against German armor and got their asses handed to them, so they came out of the war rightly impressed with the effectiveness of the German tanks.

Likewise, their performance (as much for tactical as technical reasons) in Russia was good enough that the Russians would also reasonably be impressed by the German armored corps. Not in the "Wow, you must be the gods of tank warfare!" sense, but in the "these guys are pretty damn good, they know some tricks we don't, their weapons are not to be despised, and we're not going to get any victories from them without paying for it" sense.

Not perfect, but very much respectable. The Soviet tanks were likewise respectable, and I do not deny comparable technical quality.* But the Soviet armored corps did not stand out quite so much because the Soviets did not manage to stage stunning upset victories over entire national militaries by the use of tanks. Thus, they did not manage to impress the world quite as much as the Germans- with reason.

*Though I've heard bad things about, for instance, their mechanical reliability; I don't know what to think about that.

[K. A. Pital]

But the Soviet armored corps did not stand out quite so much because the Soviets did not manage to stage stunning upset victories over entire national militaries by the use of tanks. Thus, they did not manage to impress the world quite as much as the Germans- with reason.

Germany and Japan in 1945 don't count? I think it's just due to Cold War "obstructionism" (i.e. relevant information about a putative adversary dissapeared from wider discussions in the society).

The "impressiveness" was because the Allies operated medium tanks which ran into German heavies (Tiger and Panther, a semi-heavy). That left a bad aftertaste, but the numbers of German heavies were insufficient; in a strategic sence the Panther, for example, was not a good solution; and the entire German tank industry in a strategic sense (number of tanks per ton of steel) was really underwhelming and sucking.

But it's the individual machines that get the glory; not the long-winded explanation of how building many good medium tanks is better than creating few cool heavy machines

[Simon_Jester]

But the Soviet armored corps did not stand out quite so much because the Soviets did not manage to stage stunning upset victories over entire national militaries by the use of tanks. Thus, they did not manage to impress the world quite as much as the Germans- with reason.

Germany and Japan in 1945 don't count?

Excuse me. I did not make my meaning clear. The Germans used tanks primarily; what they did could not have been done if not for their highly effective use of tanks. For the Soviets, the use of tanks was less outstanding; the Soviet tanks were quite competent and important to the war effort, but were not famously more effective or important than, say, the Soviet artillery.

So insofar as the Germans achieved impressive results on the battlefield, much of the credit has to go to their tanks, and that is a lot of credit when you add it all up.

Moreover, the Soviet victories of 1945 were not "stunning upsets" by any stretch of the imagination, given that the Soviet armies were far larger than those of their enemies by that time, and that their enemies' industrial base had been badly damaged. While they were well executed strategically (so far as I know), they were not a surprise the way that "Oh my god they just conquered France in six weeks!" was.
_________

I think it's just due to Cold War "obstructionism" (i.e. relevant information about a putative adversary dissapeared from wider discussions in the society).

That could definitely be a big part of it.

The "impressiveness" was because the Allies operated medium tanks which ran into German heavies (Tiger and Panther, a semi-heavy). That left a bad aftertaste, but the numbers of German heavies were insufficient; in a strategic sence the Panther, for example, was not a good solution; and the entire German tank industry in a strategic sense (number of tanks per ton of steel) was really underwhelming and sucking.

But it's the individual machines that get the glory; not the long-winded explanation of how building many good medium tanks is better than creating few cool heavy machines

Yes. I'm not saying the German tank industry was great. I'm saying that the Germans built good enough tanks and used them well enough to make an impression in the minds of their enemies, and rightly earned a reputation for being relatively good at armored warfare.

[Spoonist]

Hmm I thought that by now any of our resident WWII experts would have dug us amateurs a new one. Well, lets see how long this respite lasts...

Say what? The Sherman is a shitty tank if you compare it 1-1 against, what, a Tiger? Yeah, that's a totally fair match up. The Tiger is a heavy tank, vs. a medium, the Sherman.

Even if you're comparing the Sherman to other mediums like the Panzer IV, it's still a better tank on the whole than most of its opponents. The Sherman's poor reputation came from a number of factors, mostly revisionist bullshit and exaggerations.

OK, I was not that clear. Mind you this is from memory so I can be wrong and if so point it out to me. But what I do remember is that Sherman design was not the only design considered by the US, instead of selecting the most advanced though they selected a design which was sufficient for its purpose but which could be produced in large numbers and then be adapted as necessary. So it was not the 'coolest' design that won, it was the most effecient. So compared to the other designs it was the shitty tank that was selected, because it was the best strategic decision.
If the 1-1 is a comparison between a Panzer IV vs a Sherman on stats alone then I agree with you and give points to the sherman. But again you have to take into consideration the intent of the design, the US knew that it would be an offensive campain where the axis would be on the defensive. Being the aggressive you do not win 1-1 scenarios, you need enough of the stuff to take at least equal losses and still be winning. If they had selected a more expensive but slightly better model, then they still would have taken the first hit but would have had a harder time repyaying the favor.

The Western Allies had a number of very painful experiences where they ran up against German armor and got their asses handed to them, so they came out of the war rightly impressed with the effectiveness of the German tanks.

Which is mostly due to propaganda, which the nazi's excelled at. The psychological impact of the tiger was fully utilized during the war. But really when you look at production cost, for a single tiger to be cost effective it would have to have a lot more kills than they did. So what the allies failed was to tell their troops what was considered a "loss" and what was a "victory". How many Shermans lost against a single tiger is still a "win"? Instead they only got the figures that oh my god we lost X tanks and they only lost Y tanks. When really comparing apples to melons.

Likewise, their performance (as much for tactical as technical reasons) in Russia was good enough that the Russians would also reasonably be impressed by the German armored corps. Not in the "Wow, you must be the gods of tank warfare!" sense, but in the "these guys are pretty damn good, they know some tricks we don't, their weapons are not to be despised, and we're not going to get any victories from them without paying for it" sense.

German tank tactics was amazing, none is disputing that. Their use of radios was pure genious. Their tanks however was not as good as people think. They where not marvels of german engineering, something that you will hear every now and then. That is pure propaganda.

Not perfect, but very much respectable. The Soviet tanks were likewise respectable, and I do not deny comparable technical quality.*

When taking development, cost and intended role into account, the T-34 is beyond respectible.

But the Soviet armored corps did not stand out quite so much because the Soviets did not manage to stage stunning upset victories over entire national militaries by the use of tanks. Thus, they did not manage to impress the world quite as much as the Germans- with reason.

*Though I've heard bad things about, for instance, their mechanical reliability; I don't know what to think about that.

What you are describing right now is in effect the propaganda value.
For instance, lots of the german tanks failed soon after rolling out of the factories. The most reliable nazi tank was built by checkoslovakia.

But the Soviet armored corps did not stand out quite so much because the Soviets did not manage to stage stunning upset victories over entire national militaries by the use of tanks. Thus, they did not manage to impress the world quite as much as the Germans- with reason.

Germany and Japan in 1945 don't count?

Excuse me. I did not make my meaning clear. The Germans used tanks primarily; what they did could not have been done if not for their highly effective use of tanks. For the Soviets, the use of tanks was less outstanding; the Soviet tanks were quite competent and important to the war effort, but were not famously more effective or important than, say, the Soviet artillery.

So insofar as the Germans achieved impressive results on the battlefield, much of the credit has to go to their tanks, and that is a lot of credit when you add it all up.

Moreover, the Soviet victories of 1945 were not "stunning upsets" by any stretch of the imagination, given that the Soviet armies were far larger than those of their enemies by that time, and that their enemies' industrial base had been badly damaged. While they were well executed strategically (so far as I know), they were not a surprise the way that "Oh my god they just conquered France in six weeks!" was.
_________

I think it's just due to Cold War "obstructionism" (i.e. relevant information about a putative adversary dissapeared from wider discussions in the society).

That could definitely be a big part of it.

The "impressiveness" was because the Allies operated medium tanks which ran into German heavies (Tiger and Panther, a semi-heavy). That left a bad aftertaste, but the numbers of German heavies were insufficient; in a strategic sence the Panther, for example, was not a good solution; and the entire German tank industry in a strategic sense (number of tanks per ton of steel) was really underwhelming and sucking.

But it's the individual machines that get the glory; not the long-winded explanation of how building many good medium tanks is better than creating few cool heavy machines

Yes. I'm not saying the German tank industry was great. I'm saying that the Germans built good enough tanks and used them well enough to make an impression in the minds of their enemies, and rightly earned a reputation for being relatively good at armored warfare.

So once again, i'm inclined to say that I am impressed by nazi propaganda, it still holds up today. I mean who have heard of the french WWII tanks?

[Simon_Jester]

OK, I was not that clear. Mind you this is from memory so I can be wrong and if so point it out to me. But what I do remember is that Sherman design was not the only design considered by the US, instead of selecting the most advanced though they selected a design which was sufficient for its purpose but which could be produced in large numbers and then be adapted as necessary. So it was not the 'coolest' design that won, it was the most effecient. So compared to the other designs it was the shitty tank that was selected, because it was the best strategic decision.
If the 1-1 is a comparison between a Panzer IV vs a Sherman on stats alone then I agree with you and give points to the sherman. But again you have to take into consideration the intent of the design, the US knew that it would be an offensive campain where the axis would be on the defensive. Being the aggressive you do not win 1-1 scenarios, you need enough of the stuff to take at least equal losses and still be winning. If they had selected a more expensive but slightly better model, then they still would have taken the first hit but would have had a harder time repyaying the favor.

Look, that attitude works quite well from the point of view of, say, General Eisenhower. When you can step a thousand miles back from the battlefield and look at the production statistics, the relative attrition rates, that sort of thing, your argument is sound and I am not denying it.

But for the guys on the ground, who are faced with the reality that they are sacrificing six or eight or ten tanks (which, remember, is 30, 40, or 50 people) to kill one German heavy tank (and five people), that one German tank becomes impressive as all hell. There are plenty of reasons to dismiss that when you take the ultimately abstracted view of the military analyst, but that level of abstraction is impossible for most of the people actually involved in the war, the people who actually see German tanks blowing shit up.

Talk about how that one Tiger cost the Germans more tons of steel than eight Shermans cost the Americans, or more money, or how it's a larger fraction of their total tank force, fine. But it's a simple reality that if you use human (or machine) wave tactics against an enemy that uses individually tougher units, the enemy will earn a reputation among your common soldiers, and eventually among your officers. The best you can expect is that the enemy will get a reputation for being tough, well armed and competent. Because they are tough, well armed, and competent; it's just that those three traits do not guarantee victory by themselves in the face of superior numbers and logistics.

Which is mostly due to propaganda, which the nazi's excelled at. The psychological impact of the tiger was fully utilized during the war. But really when you look at production cost, for a single tiger to be cost effective it would have to have a lot more kills than they did. So what the allies failed was to tell their troops what was considered a "loss" and what was a "victory". How many Shermans lost against a single tiger is still a "win"? Instead they only got the figures that oh my god we lost X tanks and they only lost Y tanks. When really comparing apples to melons.

This is true. But when you're one of the apples getting crushed to take down that one melon, the fact that the comparison isn't fair isn't at the forefront of your mind. Hence the psychological effect... which exists independently of the production costs and the cost-effectiveness.

And that effect is not just propaganda. Part of it is an honest reaction to the fact that you are using superior numbers to overwhelm an enemy that is inflicting disproportionate losses on you. You can do that, but don't expect real soldiers in a real battle to ignore the fact that they're dying twice as fast as the enemy just because their army has four times as many men.
________

But the Soviet armored corps did not stand out quite so much because the Soviets did not manage to stage stunning upset victories over entire national militaries by the use of tanks. Thus, they did not manage to impress the world quite as much as the Germans- with reason.

*Though I've heard bad things about, for instance, their mechanical reliability; I don't know what to think about that.

What you are describing right now is in effect the propaganda value.
For instance, lots of the german tanks failed soon after rolling out of the factories. The most reliable nazi tank was built by checkoslovakia.

I don't think it's propaganda to say something like "T-34s had a mean time to failure in combat of 16 hours, and some T-34 crews went into battle with entire spare engine blocks strapped to the back of the tank in anticipation of a breakdown." It may not be true, or it may be equally true of both sides, but it's not propaganda. And unless it is true of both sides (which I'm quite prepared to believe), it's relevant to the quality of the tanks.

There's a reason I said "I don't know what to think about that." I don't. I've heard things, but I know they could be asymmetrical because I heard someone talking about how Soviet tanks had problems in a different (Cold War) context and chose to illustrate it by hearkening back to the WWII tanks. They were not a perfectly impartial speaker, but that doesn't mean they were lying, so I don't know whether or not to take their assessment seriously.

On a more general note, propaganda can be based on facts. The Germans, through a combination of moderately good tank engineering (including, for instance, thinking to build radios into the tanks) and very good tank tactics, overwhelmed what were once thought to be powerful nations. And did so quickly, mostly by using their tanks. That is a fact. It does not make the German tankers or tank designers into gods, as the Nazis would probably have liked to present them. But it does make them impressive, respectable, to be taken very seriously.
_________

So once again, i'm inclined to say that I am impressed by nazi propaganda, it still holds up today. I mean who have heard of the french WWII tanks?

Well... there's a reason for that aside from Nazi propaganda, again. The French lost; their tanks saw action in only one campaign before being destroyed or captured. Even the captured ones were mixed into their enemies' armies, where they were diluted enough that it was hard to assess their performance.

We've heard more about, for example, British tanks than about French tanks with good reason that has nothing to do with propaganda: the British made a better showing during the war, giving us more opportunity to judge the effectiveness of their designs and tactics. Now, British tanks don't get the rampant fanboyism that some of the German heavy designs draw, but they do get attention, and people with even a moderate education about the period will be aware that the British had tanks and used them reasonably well.

The best propaganda is always that which puts a useful spin on existing, irrefutable facts, not on outright lies. The quality of German tanks as seen by popular culture is an example of this- it's an exaggeration, but it isn't a lie by any stretch of the imagination.

[Spoonist]

Well, Simon_Jester I think that we mostly agree so this is just for fun.
Remember that you started out with this:

I still think the nazi propaganda machine was amazing.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/erreicht.htm
Things like this is still making the rounds. Just like the polish cavalry. Just like jewish banking. Just like unless the bolsjeviks are stopped in country X, then country Y is bound to follow. Just like the politicians lost WWI. Just like the germans having the greatest tanks of WWII. etc.

Well, their tanks were pretty damn impressive, especially from the point of view of the English-speaking world (whose tanks sucked in comparison, by and large). The rest of it is, yes, sheer gibberish.

Which seemed to imply that you disagreed with "the germans having the greatest tanks of WWII" being propaganda. Then you continously repeat parts of that propaganda to back up your claim.
It is not impressive to build a better tank than anyone elses if you can only build a handful of them. Any one of the major players could do this, but chose not to, wanna guess why? (You know that Hitler had this fetish for 'ultimate' weapons which where all damned impressive but which usually was a detriment to the war effort, right?)
The soviets winning Stalingrad was a suprise to everyone but still thought to be OK since it was "only pure infantry attration" but winning Kursk had the US shitting bricks for years afterwards. That show of strength was directly linked to the US having to redraw all of their plans vs the soviet union. Which is exactly why I say that the nazi propaganda was amazing. 60+ years and people like you still do not understand the scope and implications of Kursk while you repeat the meme about the impressive german tanks. That is some good propaganda right there.
See, if your design does not stand up to contemporary comparison, then your tanks are really not that impressive. But if people think that your tank is that impressive, then you can use that fear and that is worth a lot. Just like you point out, being on the ground facing one of those beasts, you will hesitate and that hesitation is what will kill you.

Talk about how that one Tiger cost the Germans more tons of steel than eight Shermans cost the Americans, or more money, or how it's a larger fraction of their total tank force, fine. But it's a simple reality that if you use human (or machine) wave tactics against an enemy that uses individually tougher units, the enemy will earn a reputation among your common soldiers, and eventually among your officers. The best you can expect is that the enemy will get a reputation for being tough, well armed and competent. Because they are tough, well armed, and competent; it's just that those three traits do not guarantee victory by themselves in the face of superior numbers and logistics.

So imagine what could have happened if the nazi politicians had ordered a simpler, easy to mass produce, effective tank instead of the prestige projects.

And that effect is not just propaganda. Part of it is an honest reaction to the fact that you are using superior numbers to overwhelm an enemy that is inflicting disproportionate losses on you. You can do that, but don't expect real soldiers in a real battle to ignore the fact that they're dying twice as fast as the enemy just because their army has four times as many men.

So think how it felt to be a part of the übermensch where you know that you are better trained, better equipped and just simply better than the untermensch you are facing. Now you have finally received word that the new überpanzers the Tigers and Panthers have arrived in sufficient numbers. All the elite divisions are here. Now is the time to return to the offensive, it is time for Operation Citadel. So you pop into your Panzer IV which is such an impressive tank and you drive of. Then you realise that for every panzer IV they have a T-34. (Slight exaguration here but you get the picture)

I don't think it's propaganda to say something like "T-34s had a mean time to failure in combat of 16 hours, and some T-34 crews went into battle with entire spare engine blocks strapped to the back of the tank in anticipation of a breakdown." It may not be true, or it may be equally true of both sides, but it's not propaganda. And unless it is true of both sides (which I'm quite prepared to believe), it's relevant to the quality of the tanks.

It is the effect of propaganda that you know that the soviets had quality problems but that you do not know that the nazis had just as much problems. However some of this is not only nazi propaganda but also that of the western allies. Most people believe that D-day and its resulting invasion was the big thing, it was not, it was the eastern front. Just look at nazi troop deployment.

On a more general note, propaganda can be based on facts. The Germans, through a combination of moderately good tank engineering (including, for instance, thinking to build radios into the tanks) and very good tank tactics, overwhelmed what were once thought to be powerful nations. And did so quickly, mostly by using their tanks. That is a fact.

Uhm, everyone had radios in their tanks. Why do you mention them now, after they have been brought up by me... It was just that the germans had them in every tank and that they let their tank crews actually use them that made the difference.

The best propaganda is always that which puts a useful spin on existing, irrefutable facts, not on outright lies. The quality of German tanks as seen by popular culture is an example of this- it's an exaggeration, but it isn't a lie by any stretch of the imagination.

I think that the non-existing jewish population of most of central and eastern europe would disagree with you.

[montypython]

The Sherman was not a crappy tank when properly equipped and utilized, if the Easy Eight Shermans all had 17pdrs equipped on them for example they could kill King Tigers at the same stand-off range. The Russians used the Shermans alongside the T-34 and thought quite well of it, to keep in mind.

[spaceviking]

What was the reason for the lack of Sherman Fireflies? Were they great deal more expensive or time consuming to make? Lack of 17pdr guns? The army emphasizing artillery and Tank destroyers?

[Surlethe]

One of the reasons many people think the Nazis did something "good" was that there were a huge number of projects which were as much prestige as preparation for war. Also, because of those huge projects, there was no unemployment.

The high (perhaps unnatural) reduction in unemployment was not so much because of huge government spending projects as because the Nazis drove women out of the workforce and ruthlessly broke up unions. Decreasing the workforce by removing unemployed (women were harder-hit by the '30-'33 recession than men) and breaking up unions - thus permitting wages to fall - are both effective, and arguably immoral, ways of lowering unemployment.

[Sea Skimmer]

What was the reason for the lack of Sherman Fireflies? Were they great deal more expensive or time consuming to make? Lack of 17pdr guns? The army emphasizing artillery and Tank destroyers?

The Tiger I first appeared in the west in late 1942 in Tunisia. The first ones ever encountered were both destroyed by 6pdr anti tank guns. The tank continued to make rare appearances in Italy throughout 1943, the usual solution to a Tiger encounter was to send up a artillery spotting plane and annihilate it with 155mm guns and 8in howitzers. Meanwhile firing trials showed the new 76mm gun for the Sherman could defeat the frontal plate on the Tiger at 1,300 yards. This was deemed sufficient for the interim, and so development and deployment of the 90mm gun and the tanks to carry it was allowed to take a protracted path. In fact Army Ground Forces was more interested in increasing the number of 105mm howitzer tanks at the time. The 105mm howitzer was ideal for counting the number one opponent of the Sherman, which was the dug in Nazi anti tank gun and defending infantry.

Meanwhile the Panther tank did not appear in the west until the Anzio Invasion, and by the time the western allies realized it was six times more common then the Tiger tank it was too late to make any major equipment changes for Normandy.

The 17pdr existed because all the way back in 1940 the British began work on a replacement for the 6pdr. Until the Tiger showed up work wasn’t too pushed, but it showed up in combat in towed form in early 1943. The British then used up about the next year trying to design a new tank to take the 17pdr but they all turned up crummy for one reason or another (mostly involving the tank being too small or narrow) until the Centurion appeared in 1945. The first Sherman Firefly appeared in early 1944 as a result of those failures. The Firefly was not more common because of this late date of introduction. It could have been in service in early 1943 had anything thought it was needed and not wanted the Cromwell instead.

Once it appeared the number produced was restricted by the availability of 17pdr guns, and also the heavy modifications required mounting it. The 17pdr didn’t fit very well and had to be turned on its side, with the rear of the turret extended to take the recoil stroke. Ammunition capacity wasn’t too hot, and no HE shell existed until mid 1944 which was a huge limitation. As pointed out above, the anti tank gun was a more common foe then the tank. The US Army was offered a supply of 17pdr guns to make its own Fireflies but rejected it as the number of gun barrels involved was felt to be too low to be worth supplying an entirely new range of ammunition. In addition the Firefly was heavier then standard Sherman’s, and actually overloaded most tank landing craft slightly. The cumulative effect of all the tanks on a LCT or LST being Fireflies could be a serious problem.

So had allied commanders had more foresight, a huge swarm of 90mm and 17pdr gun could have been in widespread use in June 1944, prior to this would have made little difference anyway. However allied commanders assumed the Tiger, and then initially the Panther, would be rare beasts because of the poor reliability and impracticality of such heavy tanks! Most people now consider the Tigers and Panthers to have been a complete waste of Nazi resources, a view I largely agree with, so it’s hard to get too mad at allied planners for this correct assumption. It wasn’t good thinking, but we still won the war and frankly it’s a bit absurd to think that the Sherman would have even suffered losses much less then it already did given a heavier gun with inferior HE capability. Like any other medium tank in WW2 the Sherman was vulnerable to a high velocity gun in the 75mm class, and the world was awash with such weapons. Indeed at the end of 1944 when the US Army revised its tank requirements in view of the threat of heavy German armor, it still decided it wanted 90mm and 105mm tanks in a 1-3 ratio.